alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-591.

#### Highland Capital Management, L.P., Petitioner v. Leonard Schneider, et al.

562 U.S. 1200, 131 S. Ct. 1045,

178 L. Ed. 2d 864,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1072.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 322.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Wade, Petitioner,*

No. 92019-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71095-8-I, June 29, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1032. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

February 25 , 2020 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 19
- 00673
- CV

LARRY ROSWELL , Appellant

V. CLEAVER
- BROOKS SALES AND SERVICE, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Co ur t Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 103711
- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION This interlocutory appeal was brough t from an order granting a temporary injunction. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because t he temporary injunc tion exp ir ed on November 30, 2019. Appellant filed a response and appellee filed a reply. Appellant ’ s brief raises a single issue

— whether the t rial c ourt abused its discretion by granting temporary injunctive relief. “ The controversy underlying2

this appeal

— whethe r the grant of the injunction was proper

— has become moot. ” Brooks

- Brown v. USAA Texas Lloy d ’ s Co ., No. 03

- 15

- 00451

- CV, 2015 WL 7422986, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Nov. 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing National Collegiate Athletic Ass ’ n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 8 3, 86 (Tex. 1999) (when injunction becomes inoperative due to passage of time, issue of its validity becomes moot); Bertram v. Bistrup , No. 03

– 05

– 00333

– CV, 2009 WL 1099249, at *7 (Tex. App.

—

Austin Apr. 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (conclu ding that appea l of injunction had become moot when challenged portion expired by its own terms) ). Se e also Diaz v. Mem ’ l City Neurology, P.A., No. 14

- 94

- 00764

- CV, 1995 WL 302175, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] May 18, 1995, no writ) (mem. op.) ( dismissing appeal as moot because the temp orary inju nction at issue had expired on its own terms ). Because there is no live controversy between the parties concerning the validity of the temporary injunction, we grant appellee ’ s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of ju ri sdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Ch ristopher, Wise and Zimmerer

.
No. 10-6350.

#### Lavarn Watson, Petitioner v. Willie Lockette, et al.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 600,

178 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8879.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

*439Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 822.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Shemesh, Petitioner,*

No. 91750-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31465-1-III, April 16, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 136. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
A15A1092.

#### In the Interest of D. V. H., a child.

(802 SE2d 887)

McFADDEN, Presiding Judge.

In *In the Interest of D. V. H.,*335 Ga. App. 299 (779 SE2d 122) (2015), we affirmed the juvenile court’s dismissal of two delinquency petitions brought by the state against D. V. H. In *In the Interest of*
      *323
      *M. D. H.,*300 Ga. 46 (793 SE2d 49) (2016), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision. Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion, we adopt in its place the Supreme Court’s opinion in *In the Interest of M. D. H.,*300 Ga. 46, and we reverse the judgment below.

Decided July 11, 2017.

*Stephen A. Bradley, District Attorney, Joseph M. McKinnon, Assistant District*Attorney, for appellant.

*Bethany A. Begnaud,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Dillard, C. J., and Ellington, P J., concur.*
No. 10-6276.

#### James S. McClellan, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 988,

178 L. Ed. 2d 817,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 207.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 987, 131 S. Ct. 426, 178 L. Ed. 2d 332, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8172.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18198]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-350-1020-00]


Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Northeast California Resource 
Advisory Council, Susanville, California, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees 
Act (Public Law 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(Public Law 94-579), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Northeast 
California Resource Advisory Council will meet Thursday and Friday, 
August 13 and 14, 1998 at the Bureau of Land Management's Eagle Lake 
Field Office, 2950 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Thursday, Aug. 13, the council will 
convene at 9 a.m. at the Eagle Lake Field Office and depart for a field 
tour of livestock grazing allotments in the BLM Eagle Lake Field Office 
area of responsibility. Members of the public are invited on the field 
tour, but they must provide their own transportation in a high-
clearance vehicle. On Friday, Aug. 14, the council will convene at 8 
a.m. in the conference room of the Eagle Lake Field Office for a 
business meeting. Agenda items include a recommendation on 
implementation of recreation user fees, implementation of healthy 
rangeland standards and guidelines, an update on the northeastern 
California mule deer project, an update on the proposed Pronghorn Area 
of Critical Environmental Concern, and a discussion about monitoring. 
Public comments will be taken at 1 p.m. Depending on the number of 
persons wishing to speak, a time limit could be established.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Contact Jeff Fontana, public affairs 
officer, at (530) 257-5381.
Linda D. Hansen,
Eagle Lake Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-18198 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18390]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Departmental Offices, Debt Management Advisory Committee; Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2), that a 
meeting will be held at the U.S. Treasury Department, 15th and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., on August 4, 1998, of the 
following debt management advisory committee: The Bond Market 
Association, Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.
    The agenda for the meeting provides for a technical background 
briefing by Treasury staff, followed by a charge by the Secretary of 
the Treasury or his designate that the committee discuss particular 
issues, and a working session. Following the working session, the 
committee will present a written report of its recommendations.
    The background briefing by Treasury staff will be held at 9:30 a.m. 
Eastern time and will be open to the public. The remaining sessions and 
the committee's reporting session will be closed to the public, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 10(d).
    This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the 
authority placed in heads of departments by 5 U.S.C. App. 10(d) and 
vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the closed 
portions of the meeting are concerned with information that is exempt 
from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest 
requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the 
Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives 
of the financial community prior to making its final decision on major 
financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by 
debt management advisory committees established by the several major 
segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee 
is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
    Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may 
not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the advisory 
committee, premature disclosure of the committee's deliberations and 
reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in 
the securities market. Thus, these meetings fall within the exemption 
covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets is 
responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory 
committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a 
summary of committee activities and such other matters as may be 
informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: July 6, 1998.
Gary Gensler,
Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets).
[FR Doc. 98-18390 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
No. 10-542.

#### Alton T. Terry, Petitioner v. Tyson Farms, Inc.

562 U.S. 1200, 131 S. Ct. 1044,

178 L. Ed. 2d 864,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1031.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 604 F.3d 272.
540 P.2d 172

#### The ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF GRAHAM COUNTY, Arizona, and Honorable Lloyd Fernandez, assigned to Graham County Case #8416, and Gary H. WEAVER, D.D.S., Real Party in Interest, Respondents.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1957.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 23, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1975.

Review Denied Nov. 4, 1975.

*554Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by John S. O’Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for petitioner.

Richardson & Mortensen, by Wilford R. Richardson, Safford, for respondents real party in interest.

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

The petitioner attacks the respondent court’s refusal to grant a stay of execution of an order which petitioner has appealed to this court. We agree with the Board’s position and grant relief.

The real party in interest sought superi- or court review of a decision of the Board revoking his license to practice dentistry in the State of Arizona. The matter was heard by the respondent court which found that the revocation hearing lacked due process. The order from which the state filed its notice of appeal reversed the decision of the Board revoking the license and also decreed that “the license of the plaintiff, Gary H. Weaver, to practice dentistry in the State of Arizona is hereby restored.”

Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal and moved for a stay of execution of judgment. The request for a stay was denied.

We agree with the petitioner that it was entitled to a stay upon the filing of its notice of appeal. *Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Superior Court,*15 Ariz.App. 149, 486 P.2d 829 (1971). We do not believe that the stay would be a futile act, as contended by real party in interest, citing *Rosenzweig v. Rodgers,*42 Ariz. 57, 22 P. 2d 407 (1933). In *Rosenzweig*it was held that a judgment which had been completely executed cannot be superseded.

It would appear that this principle would apply here since the respondent court’s order restoring the real party in interest’s license was self-executing and therefore a stay would be ineffectual. However, that portion of the order is a nullity as the respondent court lacked authority to decree restoration. Upon review of a decision of the dentistry board, the superior court may “[mjodify, affirm or reverse the decision in whole or in part.” A.R.S. Sec. 12-911(5). The measure of the court’s power is circumscribed by the statutory provision. *English v. City of Long Beach,*35 Cal.2d 155, 217 P.2d 22 (1950); *State v. Carmody,*53 N.M. 367, 208 P.2d 1073 (1949); 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law Sec. 255 (1962).

Since the only portion of the superior court order which is viable is that portion reversing the Board’s revocation of the license, the Board was entitled to a stay of execution of such order until the return of the mandate from the appeal.

The filing of this opinion shall constitute a mandate that the enforcement of the superior court judgment in Graham County Superior Court Cause # 8416 is stayed pending the determination of the appeal filed by the Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners.

HOWARD, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concurring.
No. 10-7099.

#### Richard L. Edwards, Petitioner v. Rick M. Hill, Acting Warden.

562 U.S. 1114, 131 S. Ct. 833,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9649.

178 L. Ed. 2d 566,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-295.

#### James B. Veasaw, Petitioner v. United States, et al.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 814,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9469.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 964, 131 S. Ct. 480, 178 L. Ed. 2d 292, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8062.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                        19,931  
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 108,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3,390
<INVENTORY>                                   211,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              355,027
<PP&E>                                        231,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                19,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                868,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         172,562
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    127,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  868,884
<SALES>                                       164,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              164,325
<CGS>                                         137,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 137,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              31,518
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            10,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (13,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (14,423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (14,423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0 
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37137-37138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18290]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By notice dated January 21, 1998, and published in the Federal 
Register on February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7181), Johnson & Johnson 
Pharmaceutical Partners, HC-02 Box 19250, KMO.1 Mamey Ward (HC-02 Box 
19250), Gurabo, Puerto Rico 00778-9629, made application by renewal to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of sufentanil (9740), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacture sufentanil for bulk distribution to 
its customers.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson & 
Johnson Pharmaceutical Partners to manufacture sufentanil is consistent 
with the public interest at this time. Therefore, pursuant

[[Page 37138]]

to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above is 
granted.

    Dated: June 30, 1998.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18290 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
2016-1158.

#### State ex rel. Andrasi v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-531, 2016-Ohio-4971. On application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
No. 10-5901.

#### Thelma Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. L. Free, et al.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 417,

178 L. Ed. 2d 325,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8294,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of First Niles Financial, Inc. (The "Registrant") that the
Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the
Registrant for such period.

|Date: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ William L. StephensWilliam L. StephensPresident and Chief Executive Officer             
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ Lawrence SafaekLawrence SafarekVice President and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 10-5062.

#### Tyrone Noble, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 901, 131 S. Ct. 235,

178 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6403.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

*157Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 423.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17588]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, June 23, 1998, 2:00 p.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS: Special Telephonic Meeting (Open).

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Announcements
III. Discussion of the Schools and Religion Hearing

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.
Stephanie Y. Moore,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-17588 Filed 6-26-98; 5:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 27, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Robert W.
Cremin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: January 8, 2007



By:

/s/ Robert W. CreminRobert W. CreminChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ STUART GRAYSTON                                                  
|Stuart Grayston President and chief executive officer August 14, 2007



18